Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the danger profile is covered structurally. The description adds the auth requirement ('Requires asset_statuses:write scope'), which is genuine value beyond the annotations, but does not disclose side effects like whether deleting a status affects assets assigned to it.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences, zero waste, purpose front-loaded ahead of the scope requirement. Nothing redundant.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a single-parameter deletion whose safety profile is already in annotations, the description covers purpose plus the required scope, which is adequate to invoke correctly. It could say more about downstream references/irreversibility, but the annotation layer covers most of that.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% and the single required 'id' (uuid) is fully described in the schema; the description's 'by ID' merely restates it. Baseline 3 applies since the schema carries the parameter documentation.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb (Delete) and resource (asset status) with the identifying key (by ID). It does not distinguish itself from the many sibling delete_* tools, but the resource is unambiguous within its own family (create/update/delete_asset_status).

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance on when to use this over alternatives, no prerequisites beyond scope, no warning about what deletion implies or whether the status is referenced elsewhere. The agent gets the 'what' but no 'when'.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.